JUDGMENT 1. - Through this second appeal tenant Jadulal has challenged the judgment and decree dated 1.2.1996 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur confirming the judgment & decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Pipar City dated 8.8.1995 in Civil .Suit No. 129/93. 2. The suit property is a shop situate in Pipar Sahar. The suit was filed by Jainarain & others on behalf of idol of Laxmi Narayanji. It was averred that the shop was required for construction of water hut (Pyau) and a place of stay for the public. It was also averred that the defendant had committed defaults in the payment of rent. The suit was resisted on both the grounds. However, defendant deposited arrears of rent and suit proceeded on the ground of reasonable and bonafide necessity. Both the parties led oral evidence. The learned Munsif held that the requirement of plaintiff of the suit premises was reasonable and bonafide. This finding was upheld by the learned Addl. District Judge. 3. The contention of Mr. Thanvi is that the trial Court and the first Appellate Court have not properly considered the question of comparative hardship. According to him there are already number of water huts in the market and, therefore, the requirement of the plaintiff for constructing a water hut was neither reasonable nor bonafide. His second submission was that new tenancy was created vide document Ex. A/1 dated 7.10.1983 and, therefore, the suit could not be filed before the expiry of five years. 4. Mr. Boob, learned counsel for the respondent contends that no substantial question of law is involved in this second appeal and there is no substance in both the contentions raised by Mr. Thanvi. 5. Coming to the second contention first it may be straight-way stated that the document Ex. A/1 does not create fresh tenancy. What is stated in the letter Ex. A/1 written by Maheshwari Samaj to Jadulal tenant is that a sum of Rs. 915/- has been received towards rent and that the rent was Rs. 161 /- per month. The Rent Note is Ex. 1. It indicates that tenancy started from 18.3.1959. The Rent Note nowhere mentions that along with shop the room situate in the first floor was also rented out. Simply because the words " fcuk mijyk ekeyk " are written in Ex. 161 /- per month. The Rent Note is Ex. 1. It indicates that tenancy started from 18.3.1959. The Rent Note nowhere mentions that along with shop the room situate in the first floor was also rented out. Simply because the words " fcuk mijyk ekeyk " are written in Ex. A/1 it cannot be presumed that this room situate in first floor was also let out to the defendant in 1959. The words have been written for becoming more specific, so that there may not be any problem in future. There is no evidence on record worth the name that this room situate on the first floor was also given on rent. That being so the letter Ex. A/1 does not constitute fresh tenancy. 6. Corning to the first contention raised by Mr. Thanvi we may go through statements of the witnesses. It has come in the statement of Jadulal, DW 1 that he was not in a position to run the business and, therefore, he had appointed his son Kishore on salary basis to run the business. It has further come in the statement of Gautam, DW 3 who is son of Kishore that Kishore has died. The other sons of the defendant admittedly reside separately. When the defendant is not in a position to run the business, it cannot be said that greater hardship would be caused to him if the decree of eviction is passed. 7. It is of course true that in the plaintiff's evidence it has been admitted that there are other water huts also in the market and one water hut known as 'Shiv Pyau' is situate under the plaintiff-temple itself. However, the plaintiffs have come with a case that not only they want to construct 'Pyau'but also they want to construct a guest house for the people who visit Pipar City. Bhanwarlal, PW 1 has deposed that there is no separate place of stay in Pipar City for the people of Maheshwari community. This fact cannot be denied that the suit shop as also the room in the first floor which has a passage from outside can be converted as place of stay and also there maybe a water hut. The plaintiffs obviously require the suit shop for the benefit of public at large. The temple is managed by the Maheshwari community. This fact cannot be denied that the suit shop as also the room in the first floor which has a passage from outside can be converted as place of stay and also there maybe a water hut. The plaintiffs obviously require the suit shop for the benefit of public at large. The temple is managed by the Maheshwari community. It cannot be said that the requirement of the plaintiff's of the shop is not bonafide. 8. Question of comparative hardship can be considered only when the defendant first establishes that no shop would be available to him in Pipar City. Defendant Jadulal no-where deposes that he had made search for a shop in Pipar City and no shop was available. It has therefore to be presumed that the defendant can get a shop, if at all he wants to continue his business.Plaintiff's hardship is apparent when there is no place of stay for the community in the town. In my considered opinion, both the Courts below have not erred in deciding the issue of comparative hardship in favour of the plaintiff. 9. In second appeal the finding given on the facts cannot be disturbed even though it may be shown to be erroneous in some respect. After going through the entire evidence on record I do not find any substance in the contention that the finding given on the question of hardship is erroneous. 10. Consequently, there is no merit in this second appeal, which is hereby dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******